FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

The guns included in our "real world guns" list were those we had easy access to
from our personal collections when we tested that specific caliber/cartridge. No
guns were intentionally excluded.

You didn't test my favorite ammunition. Why do you hate me/it?

The ammunition included in our tests was what was readily available at the
time of the test of that specific caliber/cartridge, and that we thought would give a good
cross-section of what was commonly available. No ammunition brand/manufacturer was
intentionally excluded.

You didn't test my favorite caliber/cartridge. Why do you hate me/it?

Stop being so paranoid. This isn't all about you. We started with the
most common calibers/cartridges, and have been expanding our tests to include less common ones as
we've gone on. But each new caliber/cartridge test sequence has a significant cost associated
with it, in terms of both financial outlay and labor. If you want to know how your favorite
caliber/cartridge tests, our standards and protocols are readily available – go ahead, knock yourself
out, and do the tests.

You tested one primarily rifle cartridge (.223) – when are you going to test others?

There are several handguns guns readily available which shoot the .223, and Keith
was particularly curious about how that would perform in handguns. So we tested it.
We have no concrete plans to test other cartridges which are primarily associated with rifles.

Your data is skewed to favor @#!&&@ manufacturer. I bet they paid you off.

That's not a question. But no, nothing is "sponsored." All expenses
are paid out of pocket by us.

I have a great website. You should link to it. Want to exchange links?

Go away.

You guys are great! I have been looking for this kind of information online for, like,
forever. Can I make a contribution or something to support your work?

Thanks. Seriously, thanks. If you would like to make a small
donation to help offset costs, use the donation button on the left.

There's a problem I've seen in your data . . .

Yup. The data is as it was collected. There are glitches here and
there. Might be due to a poor re-crowning. Might be due to a malfunctioning piece of
equipment. Rather than fudge things to make the numbers all nice and tidy, we put the actual
data out there, warts and all.

You guys should have tested more rounds with each test, you know that? I mean,
just three rounds isn't enough to get a good statistical model.

Yeah, we know. The data is indicative, not conclusive. Meaning that you
should be able to draw some conclusions from it about general trends, but not consider it the 'last
word.' You want more definitive results, feel free to do the testing yourself.

Eh. Why did you guys bother with this? Everyone knows that the rule of thumb
is about 50 f.p.s. for each inch of barrel length. That's all you need to know.

Sure thing. Except it's not. Look at the actual data, for any
caliber/cartridge, and you'll see your 'rule of thumb' isn't accurate. At all.

Other Resources

BBTI is not the end-all of ballistics testing, just one more component
available for the common good. In addition to extensive discussion
about ballistics to be found at many gun forums, here are some other great
resources pertaining to ballistics testing you should check out. (And
if you would like to recommend a site to list here, please send an email.)

BrassFetcher:
excellent resource, with an emphasis on bullet performance in ballistic
gelatin

Terminal Ballistics
Research: Specializes in the research of cartridge & projectile performance,
using hard data gathered from 20 years of hunting game.

Acknowledgements

We'd like to personally and specifically thank Pat Childs at Fin & Feather in Iowa City, as he not only helped get most of our
ammunition and other supplies, he was the brilliant gunsmith who worked with us to make
this insane project much more practical. Without his help all of this would have
been much more difficult and perhaps impossible. Anyone who uses our data owes him
a debt of gratitude.

And thanks to our spouses, who were not just tolerant but enthusiastically supportive
of this rather nutty project.

Disclaimer

This project, and all of its results, is only our fault. We (well, Jim K,
mostly) paid for everything ourselves, and we did not receive any kind of sponsorship
or remuneration from anyone. We did all the work. We used products we
were either familiar with, or because they were what was available, and mentioning
them by name does not constitute an endorsement of any kind. Furthermore, the
data is provided purely for entertainment purposes - to better facilitate arguments
over what ammo or caliber or gun is "best." How you use the data is entirely
up to you. And if you think you could do better, feel free to spend the money
and do the work and publish your own results. Or not. Your choice.